SAN FRANCISCO — A tech executive's anger led him to lash out against the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website hounded from the internet domain registries of GoDaddy and Google after it rhetorically attacked the woman killed during the recent alt-right violence in Charlottesville, Va.

On Wednesday, Matthew Prince, CEO of Cloudflare, a San Francisco firm that provides protective services to websites, decided to withdraw online protection from company client the Daily Stormer. Stripping that protection in effect made it impossible for the site, the target of numerous groups wanting to knock it offline, to operate.

“I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the internet,” Prince said in a note to employees obtained by Gizmodo. “My rationale for making this decision was simple: the people behind the Daily Stormer are (anatomical profanity) and I'd had enough.”

Having his company embraced by white supremacists pushed him to his decision, he told Gizmodo.

“The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them and that is the opposite of everything we believe,” Prince said. “That was the tipping point for me.”

In a blog post later Wednesday, Prince noted that Cloudflare's withdrawal of protection would send a site like the Daily Stormer to its doom at the hands of activist hackers deploying Distributed Denial of Service, or DDoS, bombardment attacks.

“The size and scale of the attacks that can now easily be launched online make it such that if you don't have a network like Cloudflare in front of your content, and you upset anyone, you will be knocked offline,” he wrote. “In fact, in the case of the Daily Stormer, the initial requests we received to terminate their service came from hackers who literally said: ‘Get out of the way so we can DDoS this site off the Internet.'”

Prince acknowledged that he'd thrown the site to the wolves - or rather to online vigilantes.

“You, like me, may believe that the Daily Stormer's site is vile. You may believe it should be restricted. You may think the authors of the site should be prosecuted. Reasonable people can and do believe all those things,” he wrote.

But leaving the policing of online content up to “vigilante hackers” undermines “any rational concept of justice,” Prince wrote.

A company colleague noted the import of Prince's move against the neo-Nazi site.

“Someone on our team asked after I announced we were going to terminate the Daily Stormer: ‘Is this the day the Internet dies?'” Prince wrote.

“He was half joking, but only half. He's no fan of the Daily Stormer or sites like it. But he does realize the risks of a company like Cloudflare getting into content policing.”

Prince called for a clear framework for regulation of online content, in an age where control over content falls to a small number of big players.

“In a not-so-distant future, if we're not there already, it may be that if you're going to put content on the internet you'll need to use a company with a giant network like Cloudflare, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, or Alibaba,” he wrote.

“Without a clear framework as a guide for content regulation, a small number of companies will largely determine what can and cannot be online.”

The Daily Stormer moved to a Russian domain registry, but it was not accessible Wednesday evening.

“You've requested a page on a website (dailystormer.ru) that is on the Cloudflare network,” said a message that appeared when The Mercury News attempted to visit the site. “Cloudflare is currently unable to resolve your requested domain (dailystormer.ru).”

On Thursday, Radio Free Europe reported that the Daily Stormer's new Russian web host had suspended the site after the Russian government media regulator asked it to probe “extremist content” on the site. An attempt Thursday by The Mercury News to access the site showed it was offline.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.